Never seen “context clues” used in any other…context…than for working out definitions — even after going Googling for them after reading your post. That’s why I suggested “circumstantial evidence” instead; if someone does go looking to figure out what you mean, it’s less confusing. Of course, they could, ironically enough, use context clues to figure out what you meant by “context clues,” even though you’re not using it in the standard way. I believe this thread has successfully eaten its own tail.
When people hear “circumstantial evidence,” they sometimes think that means that it’s somehow weaker than other forms of evidence by default. That’s not necessarily the case. There can be strong or weak circumstantial evidence just as any other form of evidence.
The evidence is pointing more and more to some kind of wrongdoing, whether criminal or just tone-deaf and unethical remains to be seen. I agree with you that the meeting with Chalupa at least looks like a botched attempt at collusion, and ethically speaking, incompetent and unethical is no better than competent and unethical. That may be what comes back to bite them, but I’m bargaining more on the time-honored tradition of the cover-up being worse than the crime finally being the thing that undoes them, if anything does.